Comparison of the accuracy between robot-assisted and conventional freehand pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Advancing robot-guided techniques in lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spine surgery is a crucial intervention for addressing spinal injuries or conditions affecting the spine, often involving lumbar fusion through pedicle screw (PS) insertion. The precision of PS placement is pivotal in orthopedic surgery. This systematic review compares the accuracy of robot-guided (RG) surgery with free-hand fluoroscopy-guided (FFG), free-hand without fluoroscopy-guided (FHG), and computed tomography image-guided (CTG) techniques for PS insertion.

METHODS

A systematic search of various databases from 1 January 2013 to 30 December 2023 was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes, including PS insertion accuracy and breach rate, were analyzed using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of PS insertion using RG, based on 37 studies involving 3,837 patients and 22,117 PS, is 97.9%, with a breach rate of 0.021. RG demonstrated superior accuracy compared to FHG and CTG, with breach rates of 3.4 and 0.015 respectively for RG versus FHG, and 3.8 and 0.026 for RG versus CTG. Additionally, RG was associated with reduced mean estimated blood loss compared to CTG, indicating improved safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The RG is associated with enhanced accuracy of PS insertion and reduced breach rates over other methods. However, additional randomized controlled trials comparing these modalities are needed for further validation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023483997.

Comparison of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails and cohort studies

BACKGROUND

As an emerging technology in robot-assisted (RA) surgery, the potential benefits of its application in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) lack substantial support from current evidence.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate whether the RA TLIF is superior to FG TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies comparing RA versus FG TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases through July 2022 by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, VIP, and the Cochrane Library, as well as the references of published review articles. Both cohort studies (CSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Evaluation criteria included the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement, proximal facet joint violation (FJV), radiation exposure, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and surgical revision. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and ROBINS-I Tool. Random-effects models were used, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) was employed as the effect measure. We conducted subgroup analyses based on surgical type, the specific robot system used, and the study design. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Our search identified 539 articles, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that RA had 1.03-folds higher "clinically acceptable" accuracy than FG (RR: 1.0382, 95% CI: 1.0273-1.0493). And RA had 1.12-folds higher "perfect" accuracy than FG group (RR: 1.1167, 95% CI: 1.0726-1.1626). In the case of proximal FJV, our results indicate a 74% reduction in occurrences for patients undergoing RA pedicle screw placement compared to those in the FG group (RR: 0.2606, 95%CI: 0.2063- 0.3293). Seventeen CSs and two RCTs reported the duration of time. The results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference between RA and FG group (SMD: 0.1111, 95%CI: -0.391-0.6131), but the results of RCTs suggest that the patients who underwent RA-TLIF need more surgery time than FG (SMD: 3.7213, 95%CI: 3.0756-4.3669). Sixteen CSs and two RCTs reported the EBL. The results suggest that the patients who underwent RA pedicle screw placement had fewer EBL than FG group (CSs: SMD: -1.9151, 95%CI: -3.1265-0.7036, RCTs: SMD: -5.9010, 95%CI: -8.7238-3.0782). For radiation exposure, the results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference in radiation time between RA and FG group (SMD: -0.5256, 95%CI: -1.4357-0.3845), but the patients who underwent RA pedicle screw placement had fewer radiation dose than FG group (SMD: -2.2682, 95%CI: -3.1953-1.3411). And four CSs and one RCT reported the number of revision case. The results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference in the number of revision case between RA and FG group (RR: 0.4087,95% CI 0.1592-1.0495). Our findings are limited by the residual heterogeneity of the included studies, which may limit the interpretation of the results.

CONCLUSION

In TLIF, RA technology exhibits enhanced precision in pedicle screw placement when compared to FG methods. This accuracy contributes to advantages such as the protection of adjacent facet joints and reductions in intraoperative radiation dosage and blood loss. However, the longer preoperative preparation time associated with RA procedures results in comparable surgical duration and radiation time to FG techniques. Presently, FG screw placement remains the predominant approach, with clinical surgeons possessing greater proficiency in its application. Consequently, the integration of RA into TLIF surgery may not be considered the optimal choice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023441600.

Accuracy and clinical characteristics of robot-assisted cervical spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and feasibility of robot-assisted cervical screw placement and factors that may affect the accuracy.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was made on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Med for the selection of potential eligible literature. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of the relative risk (RR) or standardized mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses of the accuracy of screw placement at different cervical segments and with different screw placement approaches were performed. A comparison was made between robotic navigation and conventional freehand cervical screw placement.

RESULTS

Six comparative cohort studies and five case series studies with 337 patients and 1342 cervical screws were included in this study. The perfect accuracy was 86% (95% CI, 82-89%) and the clinically acceptable rate was 98% (95% CI, 95-99%) in robot-assisted cervical screw placement. The perfect accuracy of robot-assisted C1 lateral mass screw placement was the highest (96%), followed by C6-7 pedicle screw placement (93%) and C2 pedicle screw placement (86%), and the lowest was C3-5 pedicle screw placement (75%). The open approach had a higher perfect accuracy than the percutaneous/intermuscular approach (91% vs 83%). Compared with conventional freehand cervical screw placement, robot-assisted cervical screw placement had a higher accuracy, a lower incidence of perioperative complications, and less intraoperative blood loss.

CONCLUSION

With good collaboration between the operator and the robot, robot-assisted cervical screw placement is accurate and feasible. Robot-assisted cervical screw placement has a promising prospect.

Decreasing the Pedicle Screw Misplacement Rate in the Thoracic Spine With Robot-guided Navigation

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the screw accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws placed with a robot-guided navigation system.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Thoracic pedicles are smaller in diameter than lumbar pedicles, making pedicle screw placement difficult. Misplaced pedicle screws may present complications including decreased construct stability, and increased risks of neurological deficits and blood vessel perforation. There is a dearth of knowledge on thoracic pedicle screw accuracy placed with a robot.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the robot-assisted placement of thoracic pedicle screws was performed. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans of the implanted thoracic screws were collected to assess screw placement accuracy, pedicle breadth, and placement deviations. A CT-based Gertzbein and Robbins System was used to classify pedicle screw accuracy in 2 mm increments. A custom image overlay software was used to determine the deviations between the preoperatively planned trajectory of pedicle screws and final placement at screw entry (tail), and tip in addition to the angular deviation.

RESULTS

Seventy-five thoracic pedicle screws were implanted by navigated robotic guidance in 17 patients, only 1.3% (1/75) were repositioned intraoperatively. Average patient age and body mass index were 57.5 years and 25.9 kg/m 2 , respectively, with 52.9% female patients. Surgery diagnoses were degenerative disk disease (47.1%) and adjacent segment disease (17.6%). There were zero complications, with no returns to the operating room. According to the CT-based Gertzbein and Robbins pedicle screw breach classification system, 93.3% (70/75) screws were grade A or B, 6.6% (5/75) were grade C, and 0% were grade D or E. The average deviation from the preoperative plan to actual final placement was 1.8±1.3 mm for the screw tip, 1.6±0.9 mm for the tail, and 2.1±1.5 degrees of angulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The current investigation found a 93.3% accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine. Navigated robot assistance is a useful system for placing screws in the smaller pedicles of the thoracic spine.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-retrospective nonexperimental study.

Robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw fixation of thoracolumbar compression fractures

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes and accuracy of robot-assisted (RA) versus fluoroscopy-guided (FG) pedicle screw fixation of thoracolumbar compression fractures. We retrospectively enrolled 85 patients with surgically treated thoracolumbar compression fractures in our study (RA group, 45 patients; FG group, 40 patients). We analyzed the accuracy of pedicle screw placement by using the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, and calculated the one-time success rate (i.e., the rate of screws successfully inserted in the first attempt). We also evaluated volume of blood loss, operative time, visual analogue scale scores for pain, Cobb angle, and postoperative complications. The rates of grade A screw placement (96% vs 68.5%; P < .005), clinically acceptable screw placement (98.2% vs 86%; P < .005), and the one-time success rate (97.3% vs 82.5%; P < .005) were all significantly higher in the RA group than in the FG group. No differences were observed in sex, age, body mass index, volume of blood loss, operative time, visual analogue scale scores, Cobb angle, and postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Compared to FG surgery, RA surgery yielded greater accuracy and one-time success rates of pedicle screw fixation of thoracolumbar compression fractures, with comparable clinical outcomes.

Pedicle Screw Placement Accuracy in Robot-Assisted Spinal Fusion in a Multicenter Study

Pedicle screw fixation is a spinal fusion technique that involves the implantation of screws into vertebral pedicles to restrict movement between those vertebrae. The objective of this research is to measure pedicle screw placement accuracy using a novel automated measurement system that directly compares the implanted screw location to the planned target in all three anatomical views. Preoperative CT scans were used to plan the screw trajectories in 122 patients across four surgical centers. Postoperative scans were fused to the preoperative plan to quantify placement accuracy using an automated measurement algorithm. The mean medial-lateral and superior-inferior deviations in the pedicle region for 500 screws were 1.75 ± 1.36 mm and 1.52 ± 1.26 mm, respectively. These deviations were measured using an automated system and were statistically different from manually determined values. The uncertainty associated with the fusion of preoperative to postoperative images was also quantified to better understand the screw-to-plan accuracy results. This study uses a novel automated measurement system to quantify screw placement accuracy as it relates directly to the planned target location, instead of analyzing for breaches of the pedicle, to quantify the validity of using of a robotic-guidance system for accurate pedicle screw placement.

Assessing the Accuracy of Spinal Instrumentation Using Augmented Reality (AR): A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Technological advancements, particularly in the realm of augmented reality (AR), may facilitate more accurate and precise pedicle screw placement. AR integrates virtual data into the operator's real-world view, allowing for the visualization of patient-specific anatomy and navigated trajectories. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement using AR-based systems. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE database, including studies reporting the accuracy of pedicle screw placement using AR. In total, 8 studies with 163 patients and 1259 screws were included in the analysis. XVision (XVS) was the most commonly used AR system (595 screws) followed by the Allura AR surgical navigation system (ARSN) (462 screws). The overall accuracy was calculated as 97.2% (95% CI 96.2-98.1% p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy rates achieved by XVS and Allura ARSN (p = 0.092). AR enables reliable, accurate placement of spinal instrumentation. Future research efforts should focus on comparative studies, cost effectiveness, operative time, and radiation exposure.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery and Navigation in Deformity Surgery

Deformity surgery is advancing quickly with the use of three-dimensional navigation and robotics. In spinal fusion, the use of robotics improves screw placement accuracy and reduces radiation, complications, blood loss, and recovery time. Currently, there is limited evidence showing that robotics is better than traditional freehand techniques. Most studies favoring robotics are small and retrospective due to the novelty of the technology in deformity surgery. Using these systems can also be expensive and time-consuming. Surgeons should use these advancements as tools, but not rely on them to replace surgical experience, anatomy knowledge, and good judgment.

Navigated, percutaneous, three-step technique for lumbar and sacral screw placement: a novel, minimally invasive, and maximally safe strategy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spine surgery is a field of active and intense research. Image-guided percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement is a valid alternative to the standard free-hand technique, thanks to technological advancements that provide potential improvement in accuracy and safety. Herein, we describe the clinical results of a surgical technique exploiting integration of neuronavigation and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) for minimally invasive PPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An intraoperative-computed tomography (CT)-based neuronavigation system was combined with IONM in a three-step technique for PPS. Clinical and radiological data were collected to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the procedure. The accuracy of PPS placement was classified according to the Gertzbein-Robbins scale.

RESULTS

A total of 230 screws were placed in 49 patients. Only two screws were misplaced (0.8%); nevertheless, no clinical sign of radiculopathy was experienced by these patients. The majority of the screws (221, 96.1%) were classified as grade A according to Gertzbein-Robbins scale, seven screws were classified as grade B, one screw was classified as grade D, and one last screw was classified as grade E.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed three-step, navigated, percutaneous procedure offers a safe and accurate alternative to traditional techniques for lumbar and sacral pedicle screw placement. Level of Evidence Level 3. Trial registration Not applicable.

Minimally-Invasive Assisted Robotic Spine Surgery (MARSS)

Minimally-Invasive robotic spine surgery (MARSS) has expanded the surgeons armamentarium to treat a variety of spinal disorders. In the last decade, robotic developments in spine surgery have improved the safety, accuracy and efficacy of instrumentation placement. Additionally, robotic instruments have been applied to remove tumors in difficult locations while maintaining minimally invasive access. Gross movements by the surgeon are translated into fine, precise movements by the robot. This is exemplified in this chapter with the use of the da Vinci robot to remove apical thoracic tumors. In this chapter, we will review the development, technological advancements, and cases that have been conducted using MARSS to treat spine pathology in a minimally invasive fashion.

State of the art review of new technologies in spine deformity surgery-robotics and navigation

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS

Review article.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this article is to review the available evidence for computerized navigation and robotics as an accuracy improvement tool for spinal deformity surgery, as well as to consider potential complications, impact on clinical outcomes, radiation exposure, and costs. Pedicle screw and rod construct are widely utilized for posterior spinal fixation in spinal deformity correction. Freehand placement of pedicle screws has long been utilized, although there is variable potential for inaccuracy depending on surgeon skill and experience. Malpositioned pedicle screws may have significant clinical implications ranging from nerve root irritation, inadequate fixation, CSF leak, perforation of the great vessels, or spinal cord damage. Computer-based navigation and robotics systems were developed to improve pedicle screw insertion accuracy and consistency, and decrease the risk of malpositioned pedicle fixation. The available evidence suggests that computer-based navigation and robotic-assisted guidance systems for pedicle cannulation are at least equivalent, and in several reports superior, to freehand techniques in terms of accuracy. CT and robotic navigation systems do appear to decrease radiation exposure to the operative team in some reports. Published reports do indicate longer operative times with use of robotic navigation compared with traditional freehand techniques for pedicle screw placement. To date, there is no conclusive evidence that use of CT or robotic navigation has any measurable impact on patient outcomes or overall complication reduction. There are theoretical advantages with robotic and CT navigation in terms of both speed and accuracy for severe spinal deformity or complex revision cases, however, there is a need for studies to investigate this technology in these specific cases. There is no evidence to date demonstrating the cost effectiveness of CT or robotic navigation as compared with traditional pedicle cannulation techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The review of available evidence suggests that computer-based navigation and robotic-assisted guidance systems for pedicle cannulation are at least equivalent, and in several reports superior, to freehand techniques in terms of radiographic accuracy. There is no current clinical evidence that the use of navigation or robotic techniques leads to improved patient outcomes or decreased overall complications or reoperation rates, and the use of these systems may substantially increase surgical costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Robotics and Spine Surgery: Lessons From the Personal Computer and Industrial Revolutions

Over the past decade, several review articles have evaluated the techniques and outcomes of robotics vs traditional methods in spine surgery. Recently, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement has emerged, representing an important milestone in the evolution of spine surgery. In the present article, the authors aim to provide the historical context regarding the use and growth of spinal robotics through the lens of the Industrial Revolution and the personal computer revolution. While the former provides insight into the current implications of robotics in spine surgery, the latter predicts future steps in this arena.

Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Kyphoplasty versus Fluoroscopy-Assisted Kyphoplasty in the Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Making surgery as less aggressive as possible is best for elderly patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Recently, we attempted a more precise, minimally invasive, and robot-assisted kyphoplasty in our clinical setting.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of robot-assisted percutaneous kyphoplasty (rPKP) with those of fluoroscopy-assisted percutaneous kyphoplasty (fPKP) in treating OVCFs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiologic data of patients with single-segment OVCF who received either rPKP or fPKP between January 2020 and December 2020 at our institution. The operation time, injected volume of cement, length of hospital stays, visual analog scale for back pain, Oswestry Disability Index, local kyphosis angle (LKA), height of fractured vertebra (HFV), and perioperative complications were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 212 cases were included in this study, among whom 81 cases received rPKP and 131 cases received fPKP. Both techniques exhibited satisfying improvement in pain relief and radiologic outcomes. Specifically, the rPKP costed less operation time and achieved better correction and maintenance regarding LKA, HFV, and instant pain relief (P < 0.05). The length of hospital stays, incidence of cement leakage, visual analog scale for back pain, and Oswestry Disability Index at final follow-up were comparable between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

rPKP provides a precise puncture and exhibits superiority in the correction and maintenance of LKA and HFV when compared with traditional fPKP. The cost-effectiveness and specific application scenarios of this technique shall be confirmed via further extensive studies.

Application and Evaluation of an Independent Robotic Arm System in K-wire Placement for Lumbar Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

A single-center randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to introduce a novel robotic system with an independent arm ("Orthbot Intelligent Orthopedic Minimally Invasive System"; Xin Junte Surgical Technologies) that has been developed and tested as a surgical assistant for autoplacement of the Kirschner wire (K-wire) in lumbar fusion, and to evaluate its accuracy by comparing it with the conventional free-hand instrumentation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Robotic technology has performed excellently in spine surgeries and has demonstrated high clinical value and potential. Robot-assisted spinal surgery is now being promoted as a paradigm for technology-led advancement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 24 patients were recruited and assigned randomly to the robotic arm group (RG) or the free-hand group (FG). Deviation distance and deviation angle (DA) of K-wire placement were measured and compared between the RG and the FG.

RESULTS

The average deviation distance was 0.88±0.08 mm in the RG and 5.13±1.68 mm in the FG (P<0.001). In both coronal and sagittal radiographs, the average DA of K-wire placement was smaller in the RG (P<0.05), and in both axial and sagittal computed tomography scans, the average DA of pedicle screw placement was also lower in the RG (P<0.05), which indicated higher accuracy of the robotic system.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel robotic system in this study has shown certain advantages over the conventional free-hand approach in K-wire placement for lumbar fusion, including being more accurate in K-wire placement, fully automatic, and more adaptive to preoperative plans. Although the robotic arm proves to be promising in our results, the small sample size in this clinical study necessitates further multicenter, large sample follow-up studies to verify its advantages.

Comparison of accuracy and safety between robot-assisted and conventional fluoroscope assisted placement of pedicle screws in thoracolumbar spine: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the screw positioning accuracy, complications related to pedicle screw implantation, revision rate and radiation exposure between robot screw placement and traditional fluoroscopic screw placement.

METHODS

We searched several databases, including CNKI, Wanfang database, cqvip datebase, PubMed, Cochrane library and EMBASE, to identify articles that might meet the criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomized controlled trial were included. The results showed that the pedicle screw accuracy of the robot assisted group was significantly better than that of the conventional freehand (FH) group (OR = 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.75,4.45], P < .0001). There was no significant difference in the complications caused by pedicle screw implantation between the robot-assisted group and the conventional FH group [OR = 0.39, 95%CI (0.10,1.48), P = .17]. The rate of facet joint invasion in the robot-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the conventional FH group (OR = 0.06, 95%CI [0.01,0.29], P = .0006). The revision rate in the robot-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the conventional FH group (OR = 0.19, 95%CI [0.05,0.71], P = 0.0.01). There was no significant difference in the average radiation of pedicle screws implantation between the robot-assisted group and the conventional FH (mean difference = -7.94, 95%CI [-20.18,4.30], P = .20).

CONCLUSION

The robot-assisted group was significantly better than the conventional FH in the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and facet joint invasion rate and revision rate. There was no significant difference in the complication and fluoroscopy time between the two groups.

Accuracy and Efficiency of Fusion Robotics™ Versus Mazor-X™ in Single-Level Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement

Introduction

There has been a surge in robot utilization in spine surgery over the past five years with the rapid development of new spine robotic platforms. This study aimed to compare a new robotic spine platform from Fusion Robotics^TM (Fusion Robotics, Helena, MT) with the widely used Mazor-X^TM Stealth Edition robotic platform (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) in terms of workflow and lumbar pedicle screw placement accuracy.

Methods

A cadaver lab was conducted, which included four procedures with single-level lumbar pedicle screw placement using the Fusion Robotics^TM system. These four procedures were compared to four propensity-score matched cases with single-level lumbar pedicle screw placement using the Mazor-X^TM Stealth Edition. A single surgeon performed all surgeries. The cases were matched in terms of demographics (age, sex, race, BMI) and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score). The primary outcome measure was the operative workflow efficiency (duration as measured with a stopwatch by an independent observer). The secondary outcome measures were pedicle screw accuracy and accuracy to plan.

Results

After propensity-score matching, there were four cases in each group with no significant between-group differences in terms of sex, race, BMI, or surgical levels; however, there were significant differences in terms of age (p=0.01) and comorbidities (p<0.001). The workflow efficiency measurement showed that the Fusion Robotics^TM platform had a significantly shorter duration in terms of the system set-up time, planning to in-position time, and total procedure time (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the robotic platforms in terms of creating a sterile barrier, scanning and importing images, creating a plan, screw placement, screw accuracy, and screw accuracy to plan.

Conclusion

Based on our findings, the Fusion Robotics^TM platform had a significantly shorter procedure workflow duration while maintaining the same accuracy as the most commonly used robotic platform (Mazor-X^TM). This is the first study to directly compare different spine surgery robotic systems.

Clinical Accuracy, Technical Precision, and Workflow of the First in Human Use of an Augmented-Reality Head-Mounted Display Stereotactic Navigation System for Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Augmented reality mediated spine surgery is a novel technology for spine navigation. Benchmark cadaveric data have demonstrated high accuracy and precision leading to recent regulatory approval. Absence of respiratory motion in cadaveric studies may positively bias precision and accuracy results and analogous investigations are prudent in live clinical scenarios.

OBJECTIVE

To report a technical note, accuracy, precision analysis of the first in-human deployment of this technology.

METHODS

A 78-yr-old female underwent an L4-S1 decompression, pedicle screw, and rod fixation for degenerative spine disease. Six pedicle screws were inserted via AR-HMD (xvision; Augmedics, Chicago, Illinois) navigation. Intraoperative computed tomography was used for navigation registration as well as implant accuracy and precision assessment. Clinical accuracy was graded per the Gertzbein-Robbins (GS) scale by an independent neuroradiologist. Technical precision was analyzed by comparing 3-dimensional (3D) (x, y, z) virtual implant vs real implant position coordinates and reported as linear (mm) and angular (°) deviation. Present data were compared to benchmark cadaveric data.

RESULTS

Clinical accuracy (per the GS grading scale) was 100%. Technical precision analysis yielded a mean linear deviation of 2.07 mm (95% CI: 1.62-2.52 mm) and angular deviation of 2.41° (95% CI: 1.57-3.25°). In comparison to prior cadaveric data (99.1%, 2.03 ± 0.99 mm, 1.41 ± 0.61°; GS accuracy 3D linear and angular deviation, respectively), the present results were not significantly different (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The first in human deployment of the single Food and Drug Administration approved AR-HMD stereotactic spine navigation platform demonstrated clinical accuracy and technical precision of inserted hardware comparable to previously acquired cadaveric studies.

Robot-assisted vs freehand cannulated screw placement in femoral neck fractures surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported that medical robot-assisted method (RA) might be superior to conventional freehand method (FH) in orthopedic surgery. Yet the results are still controversial, especially in terms of femoral neck fractures surgery. Here, 2 methods were assessed based on current evidence.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science. and EMBASE were selected to retrieved to identify eligible studies between freehand and RAs in femoral neck fractures, with 2 reviewers independently reviewing included studies as well as collecting data.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies with 331 patients were included. Results indicated that 2 surgical methods were equivalent in terms of surgical duration, Harris score, fracture healing time, fracture healing proportion and complications, while RA showed clinical benefits in radiation exposure, intraoperative bleeding, total drilling times, and screw parallelism.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature revealed significantly difference between 2 techniques and suggested that RA might be beneficial for patients than freehand method.

Application of Spinal Robotic Navigation Technology to Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Treatment of Spinal Fractures: A Clinical, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study

Objective

To introduce a new robotic navigation system that assists pedicle screw implantation and verify the accuracy and stability of the system.

Methods

Pedicle screw placements were performed on the thoracic vertebrae (T)9–Lumbar vertebrae (L)5 thoracolumbar vertebrae of cadavers using robotic guidance. The operative duration, puncture success, correction, and correction time were assessed. Additionally, a total of 30 thoracolumbar fractures from September 2017 until June 2019 were included in a clinical study. Two groups were evaluated: the robotic guidance group and freehand group. Both sexes were evaluated. Mean ages were 47.0 and 49.1 years, respectively, in the robotic and freehand groups. Inclusion criteria was age >18 years and a thoracolumbar fracture. Intervention was the operative treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. Outcome parameters were the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and fluoroscopic data. The accuracy of the pedicle screw placement and screw penetration rate of the two groups were compared using intraoperative fluoroscopic axial images.

Results

The success rate for 108 one‐time nail placements in cadavers was 88% and two‐time nail placement was 100%. Vertebral punctures at L5 took the longest to perform and achieve correction. Clinically, there were no significant differences in patients' sex, body mass index, age distribution, or intraoperative bleeding between the groups. The average X‐ray exposure time for patients and operators were 37.69 ± 9.24 s and 0 s in the robotic group (significantly lower than in the freehand group: 81.24 ± 6.97 s vs 56.29 ± 7.93 s, respectively). Success rates for one‐time screw placements were 98.64 and 88.46% in the robotic and freehand groups, respectively, which is significant. Screw penetration rates (1.36% vs 11.54%, robotic vs freehand), were significantly different.

Conclusions

The robotic system improved the accuracy and safety of pedicle screw internal fixation and reduced patients' and operators' intraoperative radiation exposure.

Robot-assisted technique vs conventional freehand technique in spine surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of robot-assisted techniques versus conventional freehand techniques in terms of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement remains conflicting. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate this relationship.

METHODS

A systematic literature search up to July 2020 was performed and 15 studies were detected with 6041 pedicle screw placements with 2748 of them were using robot-assisted techniques and 3293 were conventional freehand techniques. They reported relationships between robot-assisted techniques and conventional freehand techniques in pedicle screw placement. Odds ratio (OR) or Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated comparing the robot-assisted techniques to conventional freehand techniques in pedicle screw placement risks using the dichotomous and continuous method with a random or fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted techniques had a significantly higher screw position grade A in Gertzbein-Robbins classification of the screw placement accuracy (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.66-3.54, P < .001); shorter postoperative stay (MD, -0.67; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.19, P < .001); lower intraoperative blood loss (MD, -91.64; 95% CI, -152.44 to -30.83, P = .003); fewer intraoperative radiation dose (MD, -23.52; 95% CI, -40.12 to -6.0.93, P = .005); and low proximal facet violations (MD, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.20, P < .001) compared with conventional freehand techniques. However, no significant difference was found between robot-assisted techniques and conventional freehand techniques in surgical time (OR, 11.71; 95% CI, 03.27-26.70, P = .13); visual analogue scale scores (MD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.23, P = .44); and Oswestry disability index scores (MD, 0.21; 95% CI, -5.09-5.51, P = .94).

CONCLUSIONS

The extent of the improvement with robot-assisted techniques in screw position grade A in Gertzbein-Robbins classification of the screw placement accuracy, postoperative stay, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative radiation dose, and proximal facet violations was significantly better than conventional freehand techniques. This relationship forces us to recommend robot-assisted techniques for pedicle screw placement to avoid any possible negative postoperative results.

Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted placement of pedicle screws compared to conventional free-hand technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The introduction and integration of robot technology into modern spine surgery provides surgeons with millimeter accuracy for pedicle screw placement. Coupled with computer-based navigation platforms, robot-assisted spine surgery utilizes augmented reality to potentially improve the safety profile of instrumentation.

PURPOSE

In this study, the authors seek to determine the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement compared to conventional free-hand (FH) technique.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

We conducted a systematic review of the electronic databases using different MeSH terms from 1980 to 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The present study measures pedicle screw accuracy, complication rates, proximal-facet joint violation, intraoperative radiation time, radiation dosage, and length of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1,525 patients (7,379 pedicle screws) from 19 studies with 777 patients (51.0% with 3,684 pedicle screws) in the robotic-assisted group were included. Perfect pedicle screw accuracy, as categorized by Gerztbein-Robbin Grade A, was significantly superior with robotic-assisted surgery compared to FH-technique (Odds ratio [OR]: 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-2.35; p=.003). Similarly, clinically acceptable pedicle screw accuracy (Grade A+B) was significantly higher with robotic-assisted surgery versus FH-technique (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.01-2.37; p=.05). Furthermore, the complication rates and proximal-facet joint violation were 69% (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.48; p<.00001) and 92% less likely (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.20; p<.00001) with robotic-assisted surgery versus FH-group. Robotic-assisted pedicle screw implantation significantly reduced intraoperative radiation time (MD: -5.30, 95% CI: -6.83-3.76; p<.00001) and radiation dosage (MD: -3.70, 95% CI: -4.80-2.60; p<.00001) compared to the conventional FH-group. However, the length of surgery was significantly higher with robotic-assisted surgery (MD: 22.70, 95% CI: 6.57-38.83; p=.006) compared to the FH-group.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis corroborates the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.

Does Robot Navigation and Intraoperative Computed Tomography Guidance Help with Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy? A Match-Paired Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (rPELD) using a specially designed orthopaedic robot with an intraoperative computed tomography-equipped suite for treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation and compare rPELD with fluoroscopy-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (fPELD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed and compared demographic data, radiologic workups, and patient-reported outcomes of 39 patients treated with rPELD and 78 patients treated with fPELD at our institution between January 2019 and December 2019.

RESULTS

Our data showed that a single-shot puncture in the rPELD group was significantly more precise compared with 4.12 ± 1.71 trials in the fPELD group (P < 0.001). There was an overall reduction of fluoroscopy (21.33 ± 3.89 times vs. 33.06 ± 2.92 times, P < 0.001), puncture-channel time (13.34 ± 3.03 minutes vs. 15.03 ± 4.5 minutes, P = 0.038), and total operative time (57.46 ± 7.49 minutes vs. 69.40 ± 12.59 minutes, P < 0.001) using the rPELD technique versus the fPELD technique. However, there were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between the 2 groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, our data indicate that rPELD provides a precise skin entry point and optimal trajectory for puncture, which increases the success rate of PELD, negating the need for revision surgery. However, further studies are required to confirm the superiority and application of the rPELD technique.

A cadaveric precision and accuracy analysis of augmented reality-mediated percutaneous pedicle implant insertion

OBJECTIVE

Augmented reality-mediated spine surgery (ARMSS) is a minimally invasive novel technology that has the potential to increase the efficiency, accuracy, and safety of conventional percutaneous pedicle screw insertion methods. Visual 3D spinal anatomical and 2D navigation images are directly projected onto the operator's retina and superimposed over the surgical field, eliminating field of vision and attention shift to a remote display. The objective of this cadaveric study was to assess the accuracy and precision of percutaneous ARMSS pedicle implant insertion.

METHODS

Instrumentation was placed in 5 cadaveric torsos via ARMSS with the xvision augmented reality head-mounted display (AR-HMD) platform at levels ranging from T5 to S1 for a total of 113 total implants (93 pedicle screws and 20 Jamshidi needles). Postprocedural CT scans were graded by two independent neuroradiologists using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (grades A-E) for clinical accuracy. Technical precision was calculated using superimposition analysis employing the Medical Image Interaction Toolkit to yield angular trajectory (°) and linear screw tip (mm) deviation from the virtual pedicle screw position compared with the actual pedicle screw position on postprocedural CT imaging.

RESULTS

The overall implant insertion clinical accuracy achieved was 99.1%. Lumbosacral and thoracic clinical accuracies were 100% and 98.2%, respectively. Specifically, among all implants inserted, 112 were noted to be Gertzbein-Robbins grade A or B (99.12%), with only 1 medial Gertzbein-Robbins grade C breach (> 2-mm pedicle breach) in a thoracic pedicle at T9. Precision analysis of the inserted pedicle screws yielded a mean screw tip linear deviation of 1.98 mm (99% CI 1.74-2.22 mm) and a mean angular error of 1.29° (99% CI 1.11°-1.46°) from the projected trajectory. These data compare favorably with data from existing navigation platforms and regulatory precision requirements mandating that linear and angular deviation be less than 3 mm (p < 0.01) and 3° (p < 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous ARMSS pedicle implant insertion is a technically feasible, accurate, and highly precise method.

The safety and accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw internal fixation for spine disease: a meta-analysis

Aims

The aim of this study was to systematically compare the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted (RA) technique with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted (CT) pedicle screw insertion for spine disease.

Methods

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WANFANG for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the safety and accuracy of RA compared with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion for spine disease from 2012 to 2019. This meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method with mixed-effects model for heterogeneity, calculating the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and risk of bias were analyzed.

Results

Ten RCTs with 713 patients and 3,331 pedicle screws were included. Compared with CT, the accuracy rate of RA was superior in Grade A with statistical significance and Grade A + B without statistical significance. Compared with CT, the operating time of RA was longer. The difference between RA and CT was statistically significant in radiation dose. Proximal facet joint violation occurred less in RA than in CT. The postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of RA was smaller than that of CT, and there were some interesting outcomes in our subgroup analysis.

Conclusion

RA technique could be viewed as an accurate and safe pedicle screw implantation method compared to CT. A robotic system equipped with optical intraoperative navigation is superior to CT in accuracy. RA pedicle screw insertion can improve accuracy and maintain stability for some challenging areas.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(10):653-666.

Robotic spine surgery: a review of the present status

With technological advancements being introduced and dominating many fields, spine surgery is no exception. In view of the patient safety and surgeon's comfort, robotics has been introduced in spine surgery. Due to small corridors for work, little room for inaccuracy, lengthy and tedious procedures, spine surgery is an ideal scenario for robotics to establish as the standard of care. Spine robotics received their first FDA clearance in 2004. New generation of spine robotics with integrated navigation systems has become available now. The primary role of spine robotics, at present, is to aid pedicle screw fixation. High quality studies have been performed to establish its role in increasing the accuracy of pedicle fixation. Studies have also reported decreased radiation and decreased operative time with spine robotics. However, few studies have reported otherwise. It is still in its nascent stage in both industrial view and surgeon familiarity. Continued research to overcome the challenges such as high cost and steep learning curve is crucial for its widespread use. Also, expanding the scope of spine robotics beyond pedicle screw fixation such as osteotomies and dural procedures would be an area for potential research. This review is intended to provide an overview of various studies in the field of robotic spine surgery and its present status.

Accuracy of fluoroscopic guidance with the coaxial view of the pedicle for percutaneous insertion of lumbar pedicle screws and risk factors for pedicle breach

OBJECTIVE

In this study the authors aimed to evaluate the rate of malposition, including pedicle breach and superior facet violation, after percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws using the coaxial fluoroscopic view of the pedicle, and to assess the risk factors for pedicle breach.

METHODS

In total, 394 percutaneous screws placed in 85 patients using the coaxial fluoroscopic view of the pedicle between January 2014 and September 2017 were assessed, and 445 pedicle screws inserted in 116 patients using conventional open procedures were used for reference. Pedicle breach and superior facet violation were evaluated by postoperative 0.4-mm slice CT.

RESULTS

Superior facet violation was observed in 0.5% of the percutaneous screws and 1.8% of the conventionally inserted screws. Pedicle breach occurred more frequently with percutaneous screws (28.9%) than with conventionally inserted screws (11.9%). The breaches in percutaneous screws were minor and did not reduce the interbody fusion rate. The angle difference between the percutaneous and conventionally inserted screws was comparable. Insertion at the L3 or L4 level, right-sided insertion, placement around a trefoil canal, smaller pedicle angle, and a small difference between the screw and pedicle diameters were found to be risk factors for pedicle breach by percutaneous pedicle screws.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous pedicle screw placement using the coaxial fluoroscopic view of the pedicle carries a low risk of superior facet violation. The screws should be placed carefully considering the level and side of insertion, canal shape, and pedicle angle.

Diagnostic accuracy of perioperative electromyography in the positioning of pedicle screws in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treatment: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

Background

To investigate in the conventional techniques of the pedicle screws using triggered screw electromyography (t-EMG), considering different threshold cutoffs: 10, 15, 20 25 mA, for predicting pedicle screw positioning during surgery of the adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

Methods

Sixteen patients (4 males, 12 females, average age 16.6 years) were included, with an average curve magnitude of 50 degrees and placement of 226 pedicle screws. Each screw was classified as “at risk for nerve injury” (ARNI) or “no risk for nerve injury” (NRNI) using CT and the diagnostic accuracy of EMG considering different threshold cutoffs (10,15, 20 and 25 mA) in the axial and Sagittal planes for predicting screw positions ARNI was investigated.

Results

The EMG exam accuracy, in the axial plane, 90.3% screws were considered NRNI. In the sagittal plane, 81% pedicle screws were considered NRNI. A 1-mA decrease in the EMG threshold was associated with a 12% increase in the odds of the screw position ARNI. In the axial and sagittal planes, the ORs were 1.09 and 1.12, respectively. At every threshold cutoff evaluated, the PPV of EMG for predicting screws ARNI was very low in the different threshold cutoff (10 and 15); the highest PPV was 18% with a threshold cutoff of 25 mA. The PPV was always slightly higher for predicting screws ARNI in the sagittal plane than in the axial plane. In contrast, there was a moderate to high NPV (78–93%) for every cutoff analyzed.

Conclusions

EMG had a moderate to high accuracy for positive predicting value screws ARNI with increase threshold cutoffs of 20 and 25 mA. In addition, showed to be effective for minimizing false-negative screws ARNI in the different threshold cutoffs of the EMG in adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

Accuracy of robot-assisted versus conventional freehand pedicle screw placement in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated differences in accuracy, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. Two investigators independently searched for articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2012 to 2019. The final meta-analysis included seven RCTs. We compared the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and conventional freehand groups. Seven RCTs included 540 patients and placement of 2,476 pedicle screws, of which 1,220 were inserted using the robot-assisted technique and 1,256 were inserted using the conventional freehand technique. The pedicle screw positions were classified using the Gertzbein and Robbins classification (grade A-E). The combined results of Grade A [odds ratio (OR) =1.68; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.82-3.44; P=0.16), Grade A+B (OR =1.70; 95% CI: 0.47-6.13; P=0.42), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.59; 95% CI: 0.16-2.12; P=0.42) for the accuracy rate revealed no significant difference between the two groups. Subgroup analysis results revealed that the TiRobot-assisted technique presented a significantly improved pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. The SpineAssist-assisted technique presented an inferior pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. No difference between the Renaissance-assisted and conventional freehand techniques was noted for pedicle screw insertion accuracy rates, based on both Grade A (OR =1.58; 95% CI: 0.85-2.96; P=0.15), Grade A+B (OR =2.20; 95% CI: 0.39-12.43; P=0.37), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.45; 95% CI: 0.08-2.56; P=0.37) classifications. Regarding operation time, robot-assisted surgery had significantly longer operation time than conventional freehand surgery. The robot-assisted group had significantly shorter radiation exposure time. Regarding the pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate, the TiRobot-assisted technique was superior, the SpineAssist-assisted technique was inferior, and Renaissance was similar to the conventional freehand technique.

Role of Robotics in Improving Surgical Outcome in Spinal Pathologies

BACKGROUND

The desire to improve accuracy and safety and to favor minimally invasive techniques has given rise to spinal robotic surgery, which has seen a steady increase in utilization in the past 2 decades. However, spinal surgery encompasses a large spectrum of operative techniques, and robotic surgery currently remains confined to assistance with the trajectory of pedicle screw insertion, which has been shown to be accurate and safe based on class II and III evidence. The role of robotics in improving surgical outcomes in spinal pathologies is less clear, however.

METHODS

This comprehensive review of the literature addresses the role of robotics in surgical outcomes in spinal pathologies with a focus on the various meta-analysis and prospective randomized trials published within the past 10 years in the field.

RESULTS

It appears that robotic spinal surgery might be useful for increasing accuracy and safety in spinal instrumentation and allows for a reduction in surgical time and radiation exposure for the patient, medical staff, and operator.

CONCLUSION

Robotic assisted surgery may thus open the door to minimally invasive surgery with greater security and confidence. In addition, the use of robotics facilitates tireless repeated movements with higher precision compared with humans. Nevertheless, it is clear that further studies are now necessary to demonstrate the role of this modern tool in cost-effectiveness and in improving clinical outcomes, such as reoperation rates for screw malpositioning.

Feasibility and accuracy of a robotic guidance system for navigated spine surgery in a hybrid operating room: a cadaver study

The combination of navigation and robotics in spine surgery has the potential to accurately identify and maintain bone entry position and planned trajectory. The goal of this study was to examine the feasibility, accuracy and efficacy of a new robot-guided system for semi-automated, minimally invasive, pedicle screw placement. A custom robotic arm was integrated into a hybrid operating room (OR) equipped with an augmented reality surgical navigation system (ARSN). The robot was mounted on the OR-table and used to assist in placing Jamshidi needles in 113 pedicles in four cadavers. The ARSN system was used for planning screw paths and directing the robot. The robot arm autonomously aligned with the planned screw trajectory, and the surgeon inserted the Jamshidi needle into the pedicle. Accuracy measurements were performed on verification cone beam computed tomographies with the planned paths superimposed. To provide a clinical grading according to the Gertzbein scale, pedicle screw diameters were simulated on the placed Jamshidi needles. A technical accuracy at bone entry point of 0.48 ± 0.44 mm and 0.68 ± 0.58 mm was achieved in the axial and sagittal views, respectively. The corresponding angular errors were 0.94 ± 0.83° and 0.87 ± 0.82°. The accuracy was statistically superior (p < 0.001) to ARSN without robotic assistance. Simulated pedicle screw grading resulted in a clinical accuracy of 100%. This study demonstrates that the use of a semi-automated surgical robot for pedicle screw placement provides an accuracy well above what is clinically acceptable.

Minimally invasive versus conventional fixation of tracer in robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion surgery: a randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the minimal invasiveness, safety, and accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement procedure using a modified tracer fixation device.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to conventional fixation group (25 patients) and modified fixation group (27 patients).

RESULTS

No baseline statistical difference was observed between the groups (P > 0.05). The length of unnecessary incision, amount of bleeding, and fixation duration for tracer fixation respectively were 6.08 ± 1.02 mm, 1.46 ± 0.84 ml, and 1.56 ± 0.32 min in the modified fixation group and 40.28 ± 8.52 mm, 12.02 ± 2.24 ml, and 5.08 ± 1.06 min in the conventional group. The difference between both groups was significant (P < 0.05). However, no significant difference between the two groups was observed in terms of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified minimally invasive procedure for tracer fixation results in minimal trauma and is simple, reliable, and highly safe. Additionally, the procedure does not compromise the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. Thus, it has great clinical applicable value.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: Registration number, ChiCTR1800016680; Registration Date, 15/06/2018.

Robotic Spine Surgery: Current State in Minimally Invasive Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVES

Robotic systems in spinal surgery may offer potential benefits for both patients and surgeons. In this article, the authors explore the future prospects and current limitations of robotic systems in minimally invasive spine surgery.

METHODS

We describe recent developments in robotic spine surgery and minimally invasive spine surgery. Institutional review board approval was not needed.

RESULTS

Although robotic application in spine surgery has been gradual, the past decade has seen the arrival of several novel robotic systems for spinal procedures, suggesting the evolution of technology capable of augmenting surgical ability.

CONCLUSION

Spine surgery is well positioned to benefit from robotic assistance and automation. Paired with enhanced navigation technologies, robotic systems have tremendous potential to supplement the skills of spine surgeons, improving patient safety and outcomes while limiting complications and costs.

Improved Accuracy of Cervical Spinal Surgery With Robot-Assisted Screw Insertion: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare robot-assisted and conventional implantation techniques by evaluating the accuracy and safety of implanting screws in cervical vertebrae.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cervical spinal surgery is difficult and dangerous as screw misplacement might lead not only to decreased stability but also neurological, vascular, and visceral injuries. A new robot-assisted surgical procedure has been introduced to improve the accuracy of implant screw positioning.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 135 patients with newly diagnosed cervical spinal disease and who required screw fixation using either robot-assisted or conventional fluoroscopy-assisted cervical spinal surgery. The primary outcomes were the discrepancies between the planned trajectories and the actual screw positions.

RESULTS

Altogether, 127 patients underwent the assigned intervention (61 robot-assisted and 66 conventional fluoroscopy-assisted). The baseline characteristics including the screw types, were similar in the two groups. Altogether, 390 screws were planed and placed in the cervical vertebrae, and 94.9% were acceptable. The robot-assisted group had a better screw placement accuracy than the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted group with associated P values <0.001 (0.83 [0.44, 1.29] vs. 1.79 [1.41, 2.50] mm). The Gertzbein and Robbins scales also showed a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the robot-assisted group experienced significantly less blood loss during surgery than the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted group (200 [50, 375] vs. 350 [100, 500] mL; P = 0.002) and shorter length of stay after surgery (P = 0.021). These two groups did not differ significantly regarding the duration of the operation (P = 0.525). Neurological injury occurred in one case in the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted group.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy and clinical outcomes of cervical spinal surgery using the robot-assisted technique tended to be superior to those with the conventional fluoroscopy-assisted technique in this prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-assisted Technique Versus Conventional Freehand Technique in Spine Surgery From Nine Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether robot-assisted techniques are superior to conventional techniques in terms of the accuracy of pedicle screw placement and clinical indexes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Robot-assisted techniques are increasingly applied to spine surgery to reduce the rate of screw misplacement. However, controversy about the superiority of robot-assisted techniques over conventional freehand techniques remains.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for potentially eligible articles. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software and subgroup analyses were performed based on the robot type for the accuracy of pedicle screw placement.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 696 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the robot-assisted technique was more accurate in pedicle screw placement than the freehand technique. Subgroup analyses showed that the TINAVI robot-assisted technique was more accurate in screw positions Grade A (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14), Grade B (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.75), and Grades C + D + E (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.45) than the freehand technique, whereas the Renaissance robot-assisted technique showed the same accuracy as the freehand technique in screw positions Grade A, Grade B, and Grades C + D + E. Furthermore, the robot-assisted techniques showed equivalent postoperative stay, visual analogue scale scores, and Oswestry disability index scores to those of the freehand technique and shorter intraoperative radiation exposure time, fewer radiation dose and proximal facet violations but longer surgical time than the freehand technique.

CONCLUSION

The robot-assisted technique is more accurate in pedicle screw placement than the freehand technique. And TINAVI robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is a more accurate alternative to conventional techniques and the Renaissance robot-assisted procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Guideline for Posterior Atlantoaxial Internal Fixation Assisted by Orthopaedic Surgical Robot

Atlantoaxial transarticular facet screw fixation (Magerl technique) and C₁ lateral mass screws combined with C₂ pedicle screws fixation (Harms technique) are the most commonly used techniques for posterior internal fixation in the upper cervical spine. Upper cervical spinal surgery is a technically demanding and challenging procedure because of complicated anatomical structures and frequent occurrence of anomalies. Accurate insertion of screws allows for stable and secure internal fixation, which is necessary for both techniques. Traditional methods under fluoroscopic assistance in this region cannot meet the requirements of high levels of accuracy and security during the procedure. Robot-assisted spinal surgery can provide accurate and reliable guidance during the screw insertion, which is evidenced in the literature. As a recently developed technique, robot-assisted surgery is supposed to be performed by skilled surgeons who have received standard training for robotic surgery. The standardized upper cervical spinal surgery assisted by the robot system needs to be introduced to these surgeons. Based on the consensus of consultant specialists, the literature review, and our local experience, this guideline included the introduction of the robotic system, the workflow of robot-assisted procedures, and the precautions to take during procedures. This guideline aims to provide a standardization of the robotic surgery for posterior atlantoaxial internal fixation.

Robotics in spinal surgery

Although the da Vinci robot system has garnered much attention in the realm of surgery over the past few decades, several new surgical robotic systems have been developed for spinal surgery with varying levels of robot autonomy and surgeon-specified input. These devices are currently being considered as potential avenues for increasing the precision of any surgical intervention. The following review will attempt to provide an overview of robotics in modern spine surgery and how these devices will continue to be employed in various sectors across the field.

Freehand pedicle screw fixation: A safe recipe for dorsal, lumbar and sacral spine

Objective:

To determine outcome of freehand pedicle screw fixation for dorsal, lumbar and sacral fractures at a tertiary care centre in the developing world.

Methods:

A retrospective review was performed of 150 consecutive patients who underwent pedicle screw fixation from January 1, 2012 to 31^st December 2017. A total of 751 pedicle screws were placed. Incidence and extent of cortical breach by misplaced pedicle screw was determined by review of intra-operative and post-operative radiographs and/or computed tomography.

Results:

Among the total 751 free hand placed pedicle screws, four screws (0.53%) were repositioned due to a misdirected trajectory towards the disc space. six screws (0.79%) were identified to have cause moderate breach while four screws (0.53%) cause severe breach. There was no occurrence of iatrogenic nerve root damage or violation of the spinal canal.

Conclusion:

Free hand pedicle screw placement based on external landmarks showed remarkable safety and accuracy in our center. The authors conclude that assiduous adherence to technique and preoperative planning is vital to success.

Review of robotic-assisted surgery: what the future looks like through a spine oncology lens

Recent advancements in medical technology have led to the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery with the hope of creating a safer and more efficient surgical environment for the patient and surgical team. Spine surgery and spine tumor surgery involve challenging anatomy and demand highly precise surgical maneuvers, creating an important niche for robotic systems. While still in its infancy, robotics in spine surgery have proven successful in pedicle screw placement. Similarly, robotics has begun to be used for accurate resections and surgical planning in tumor surgery. As future studies are published and robotics systems continue to evolve, we can expect more tactile haptic feedback and implementation of useful instruments to improve preoperative planning, resection guidance, and reconstruction during spine tumor surgery.

Augmented reality-assisted pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric proof-of-concept study

OBJECTIVE

Augmented reality (AR) is a novel technology that has the potential to increase the technical feasibility, accuracy, and safety of conventional manual and robotic computer-navigated pedicle insertion methods. Visual data are directly projected to the operator's retina and overlaid onto the surgical field, thereby removing the requirement to shift attention to a remote display. The objective of this study was to assess the comparative accuracy of AR-assisted pedicle screw insertion in comparison to conventional pedicle screw insertion methods.

METHODS

Five cadaveric male torsos were instrumented bilaterally from T6 to L5 for a total of 120 inserted pedicle screws. Postprocedural CT scans were obtained, and screw insertion accuracy was graded by 2 independent neuroradiologists using both the Gertzbein scale (GS) and a combination of that scale and the Heary classification, referred to in this paper as the Heary-Gertzbein scale (HGS). Non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing the accuracy to freehand, manual computer-navigated, and robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion accuracy rates reported in the literature. User experience analysis was conducted via a user experience questionnaire filled out by operators after the procedures.

RESULTS

The overall screw placement accuracy achieved with the AR system was 96.7% based on the HGS and 94.6% based on the GS. Insertion accuracy was non-inferior to accuracy reported for manual computer-navigated pedicle insertion based on both the GS and the HGS scores. When compared to accuracy reported for robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion, accuracy achieved with the AR system was found to be non-inferior when assessed with the GS, but superior when assessed with the HGS. Last, accuracy results achieved with the AR system were found to be superior to results obtained with freehand insertion based on both the HGS and the GS scores. Accuracy results were not found to be inferior in any comparison. User experience analysis yielded "excellent" usability classification.

CONCLUSIONS

AR-assisted pedicle screw insertion is a technically feasible and accurate insertion method.

Accuracy of Current Techniques for Placement of Pedicle Screws in the Spine: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 51,161 Screws

BACKGROUND

Pedicle screws (PSs) are routinely used for stabilization to enhance fusion in a variety of spinal diseases. Although the accuracy of different PS placement methods has been previously reported, most of these studies have been limited to 1 or 2 techniques. The purpose was to determine the current accuracy of PS placement among 4 modalities of PS insertion (freehand [FH], fluoroscopy-assisted [FA], computed tomography navigation-guided [CTNav], and robot-assisted [RA]) and analyze variables associated with screw misplacement.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of peer-reviewed articles reporting PS accuracy of 1 technique from January 1990 to June 2018. Accuracy of PS placement, PS insertion technique, and pedicle breach (PB) data were collected. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the overall pooled (OP) rates of PS accuracy as a primary outcome, stratified by screw insertion techniques. Potential determinants were analyzed via meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight studies with 7858 patients, 51,161 PSs, and 3614 cortical PBs were included. CTNav showed the highest PS placement accuracy compared with other techniques: OP accuracy rates were 95.5%, 93.1%, 91.5%, and 90.5%, via CTNav, FH, FA, and RA techniques, respectively. RA and CTNav were associated with the highest PS accuracy in the thoracic spine, compared with FH.

CONCLUSIONS

The OP data show that CTNav has the highest PS accuracy rates. Thoracic PSs were associated with lower accuracy rates; however, RA showed fewer breaches in the thoracic spine compared with FH and FA. Given the heterogeneity among studies, further standardized and comparative investigations are required to confirm our findings.

Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The object of this study was to compare the safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement using the TiRobot system versus conventional fluoroscopy in thoracolumbar spinal surgery.

METHODS

Patients with degenerative or traumatic thoracolumbar spinal disorders requiring spinal instrumentation were randomly assigned to either the TiRobot-assisted group (RG) or the freehand fluoroscopy-assisted group (FG) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of screw placement according to the Gertzbein-Robbins scale; grades A and B (pedicle breach < 2 mm) were considered clinically acceptable. In the RG, discrepancies between the planned and actual screw placements were measured by merging postoperative CT images with the trajectory planning images. Secondary outcome parameters included proximal facet joint violation, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to freehand approach in the RG, postoperative hospital stay, and radiation exposure.

RESULTS

A total of 1116 pedicle screws were implanted in 234 patients (119 in the FG, and 115 in the RG). In the RG, 95.3% of the screws were perfectly positioned (grade A); the remaining screws were graded B (3.4%), C (0.9%), and D (0.4%). In the FG, 86.1% screws were perfectly positioned (grade A); the remaining screws were graded B (7.4%), C (4.6%), D (1.4%), and E (0.5%). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws was significantly greater in the RG than in the FG (p < 0.01). In the RG, the mean deviation was 1.5 ± 0.8 mm for each screw. The most common direction of screw deviation was lateral in the RG and medial in the FG. Two misplaced screws in the FG required revision surgery, whereas no revision was required in the RG. None of the screws in the RG violated the proximal facet joint, whereas 12 screws (2.1%) in the FG violated the proximal facet joint (p < 0.01). The RG had significantly less blood loss (186.0 ± 255.3 ml) than the FG (217.0 ± 174.3 ml; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of surgical time and postoperative hospital stay. The mean cumulative radiation time was 81.5 ± 38.6 seconds in the RG and 71.5 ± 44.2 seconds in the FG (p = 0.07). Surgeon radiation exposure was significantly less in the RG (21.7 ± 11.5 μSv) than in the FG (70.5 ± 42.0 μSv; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

TiRobot-guided pedicle screw placement is safe and useful in thoracolumbar spinal surgery.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02890043 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Evidence Based Medicine Review of Posterior Thoracolumbar Minimally Invasive Technology

Background

Evaluate the current evidence in meta-analyses on posterior thoracolumbar minimally invasive surgery techniques and outcomes for degenerative conditions.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature from 1950 to 2015.

Results

The review of the literature yielded 34 meta-analysis studies evaluating posterior thoracolumbar minimally invasive techniques and outcomes for degenerative conditions. There were 11 studies included which investigated minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open posterior lumbar decompressions. There were 14 studies included which investigated MIS versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Finally, there were 9 studies focused on navigation techniques and radiation safety within MIS procedures.

Conclusions

There are 34 meta-analysis studies evaluating minimally invasive to open thoracolumbar surgery for degenerative disease. The studies show a trend toward decreased estimated blood loss, decreased length of stay, decreased complications, similar fusion rates, improved accuracy, and decreased radiation when minimally invasive techniques are used.

The Arrival of Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Review of the Literature

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The authors aim to review comparative outcome measures between robotic and free-hand spine surgical procedures including: accuracy of spinal instrumentation, radiation exposure, operative time, hospital stay, and complication rates.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Misplacement of pedicle screws in conventional open as well as minimally invasive surgical procedures has prompted the need for innovation and allowed the emergence of robotics in spine surgery. Before incorporation of robotic surgery in routine practice, demonstration of improved instrumentation accuracy, operative efficiency, and patient safety are required.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, OVID-MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases was performed for articles relevant to robotic assistance of pedicle screw placement. Inclusion criteria were constituted by English written randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies involving robotic instrumentation in the spine. Following abstract, title, and full-text review, 32 articles were selected for study inclusion.

RESULTS

Intrapedicular accuracy in screw placement and subsequent complications were at least comparable if not superior in the robotic surgery cohort. There is evidence supporting that total operative time is prolonged in robot-assisted surgery compared to conventional free-hand. Radiation exposure appeared to be variable between studies; radiation time did decrease in the robot arm as the total number of robotic cases ascended, suggesting a learning curve effect. Multilevel procedures appeared to tend toward earlier discharge in patients undergoing robotic spine surgery.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of robotic technology for pedicle screw placement yields an acceptable level of accuracy on a highly consistent basis. Surgeons should remain vigilant about confirmation of robotic-assisted screw trajectory, as drilling pathways have been shown to be altered by soft tissue pressures, forceful surgical application, and bony surface skiving. However, the effective consequence of robot-assistance on radiation exposure, length of stay, and operative time remains unclear and requires meticulous examination in future studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Utilization of the 3D-printed spine model for freehand pedicle screw placement in complex spinal deformity correction

Background

We aim to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of utilizing 3D-printed spine models to facilitate freehand pedicle screw placement in complex spinal deformity correction. Currently there is no data on using 3D-printed models for freehand pedicle screw placement spinal deformity correction.

Methods

All patients undergoing spinal deformity correction over a 16-month period (September 2015 - December 2016) at the Spine Hospital of Columbia University Medical Center by the senior surgeon were reviewed. 3D-printed spine models were used to facilitate intraoperative freehand pedicle screw placement in patients with severe spinal deformities. Intraoperative O-arm imaging was obtained after pedicle screw placement in all patients. Screws were graded as intrapedicular, <2 mm breach, 2-4 mm breach, and >4 mm breach; anterior breaches >4 mm were also recorded. Screw accuracy was compared to a historical cohort (not using 3D-printed models) using SPSS 23.0 (Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

A total of 513 freehand pedicle screws were placed from T1 to S1 in 23 patients. Overall, 494 screws (96.3%) were placed in acceptable positions according to the pre-operative plan, which had no statistically significant difference (P=0.99) compared to a historical cohort with less severe deformities. There were 84.2% screw that were intrapedicular or <2 mm breach; among the 81 screws (15.8%) with >2 mm breach, 67 were lateral breaches (most are intended juxtapedicular placement), whereas 14 were medial breaches. There were 11 screws (2.1%) that required repositioning due to pedicle violation, and eight screws (1.6%) had >4 mm anterior breach and required shortening. There was no neuromonitoring change or any other complications directly or indirectly related to freehand pedicle screw placement.

Conclusions

The 3D-printed spinal model can make freehand pedicle screw placement safer in severe spinal deformity cases with acceptable accuracy, and no neurological or vascular complications.